Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Vince Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)]

I welcome this question and the important point raised by the hon. Lady. I welcome the work that the Justice Committee is doing in this space to look at the prevention of future deaths reports to see what more we can do to ensure they are enforceable, responded to and acted upon. The Government are determined to ensure accountability at all levels on prevention of future deaths reports, and I look forward to laying out my position to the Committee soon.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

T9. Probation officers like those who work at Harlow probation office do crucial work rehabilitating those who are released from prison and ensuring that our communities are safe. What is the Minister doing to ensure that we recruit more probation officers and to ensure that they have the skills needed to do that vital work?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I pay tribute to our hard-working and dedicated probation staff, including those who bravely intervened yesterday at Manchester magistrates court to tackle an individual with a knife. Probation staff perform vital work in our communities, we owe them a debt of gratitude, and we need more to come and join the team. While we continue to exceed our recruitment targets with almost 1,400 recruited last year and a target of 1,300 in 2026-27, my message is, “Come and join this important service to protect the public and keep communities safe.”

Electronic Monitoring of Offenders

Chris Vince Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that that figure is not available, but we could not take this issue more seriously. That is why we have tagging under the domestic abuse perpetrators on licence approach, and probation services have a wider set of powers, many of which I have mentioned, including restrictions on licence conditions to prohibit offenders from driving or attending public events. It is right that we bring in our world-leading restriction zones to ensure that it is the perpetrators, not the victims of domestic violence, who have to alter their lives. We will continue to prioritise and work on this issue, and he is right to raise it.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I speak regularly to victims of crime and their families in Harlow, and I find some of their stories absolutely heartbreaking. I feel really angry that there are men in our society who think it is okay to treat women in the way they do, and I am sure that people across the House feel the same way. One thing that victims and their families raise with me is their concern about how easy it is for perpetrators—these vile individuals—to take their tags off. What can the Minister say about the punishment that will be handed down to those individuals who tamper with their tags or try to take them off?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I share my hon. Friend’s anger. Since taking on this role, I have felt very angry not just with some of the perpetrators and the cases that we see come across our desks, but with the 14 years of failure that left us in the situation we are in. We are working at pace to improve the technology and the application of the tagging system. [Interruption.] The Conservatives chunter from the Opposition Benches, but they wasted £100 million on tags that did not work. We are working to ensure that this scheme is effective, and we are working at pace to pick up the pieces that were left behind.

Prisoner Early Release Scheme

Chris Vince Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for his comments about probation. We saw the failure of the privatisation experiment conducted by the previous Government, and the impact that it had on probation staff and those who were using the Probation Service, so I welcome those comments. Like the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade), I am really concerned about those who are cutting off their tags. I have spoken to victims of domestic violence in my constituency of Harlow, who have raised the issue with me. What reassurance can the Minister give me that that will not be allowed to happen, and that if it does happen, those who take off their tags will be treated severely?

[Jake Richards]

Any attempt to interfere with tagging is very serious and will be treated in the toughest possible way. Concerns have been raised about the tagging regime, by the National Audit Office and others, and the Government will respond in due course. Performance has improved since the interim report was published a few months ago. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that at the heart of this is the question of how we tackle reoffending and bolster our Probation Service, which we have invested in. Challenges that have been raised and we accept them, but I will not take lessons on the Probation Service from the Conservatives after their failed privatisation under the now Lord Grayling, which was one of the biggest failed experiments in public service reform over the past 40 years.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Vince Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Sackman]

There is no right to a jury trial in this country; there is a right to a fair trial, and timeliness is a key ingredient of a fair trial. If someone has to wait years for their day in court, that simply is not fair, whether they are a defendant or a witness. Of course, there is precedent for this, including from someone who is perhaps the hon. Gentleman’s hero: the late, great Mrs Thatcher. The fact is that we have always made a policy choice about who can access jury trial, and we are going to make that policy choice again to deliver swifter justice for victims.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

There are concerns that the changes the Government have made will give more power to judges to make decisions on their own, so what is the Minister doing to monitor the impact of these changes and ensure that there is transparency at all stages? Can I add, following your comment, Mr Speaker, that we would like to see Harlow magistrates court reopen as well as Chorley magistrates court?

[Sarah Sackman]

My hon. Friend, as always, is an outstanding advocate for Harlow. Our judges take the judicial oath to act without fear or favour, which is why our judiciary is the finest in the world, but of course transparency matters, which is why the recording and transcription of proceedings and the review that we have committed to, to test the impact of our reforms, are so important. I observe directly the training that our judges receive, which is first class.

Prisoner Early Release

Chris Vince Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jake Richards]

Let me thank the hon. Member not just for his question but for the work he has done in good faith on this issue for a number of years. I gently say to him, as I have said before—this is difficult, no doubt—that the Sentencing Act is only on the statute book because of the failure of the Conservative Government over 14 years to build appropriate prison places.

Before coming to this place, I spent a large part of the previous decade working with victims of grooming gangs. I take this issue incredibly seriously, as I know the hon. Member does, and I respect him for the work he has done on it. But in 2022 Professor Jay’s report offered a series of recommendations on this very important issue for the hon. Gentleman’s community, my community and those across the country, and he will know, as he sits on the Home Affairs Committee, that when she gave evidence to that Committee at the beginning of 2025, she spoke of how she was ignored month after month by successive Conservative Home Secretaries. So we will not be taking lessons on this issue from the Conservative party.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for coming to the Dispatch Box and answering questions on a particularly important issue. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips) in being concerned not only about rapists being released early, but about the low conviction rates in rape cases. What are the Government doing to deal with that? What specifically can the Minister do to assure me that if any prisoners are released early—for whatever crime they have committed—they are being effectively monitored so that residents in Harlow feel safe, particularly given the mess and the two-tier probation service we were left with by the Conservative party?

May I also ask the Minister about tagging? We have all heard stories about tags not being fit for purpose, with people able to take them off. What can we do to ensure that if people are tagged on release, those tags cannot be taken off?

[Jake Richards]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As I have said, under this Government convictions for child sexual offences are at a record high. There is more work to be done in this area, and I know that my hon. Friend the victims Minister and others are working to ensure that we have even more robust investigation and punishment of those who commit these serious offences. As we set out in the Sentencing Act, we have also implemented the most robust community package ever, including exclusion zones, tagging, 24/7 tracking, curfews and the biggest expansion of tagging in history, to ensure that dangerous offenders are monitored and the public protected. We must ensure that the tagging system is robust, and we will do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Vince Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

There is a new target that 75% of patients diagnosed from 2035 will be cancer-free or living well after five years. That means that 320,000 lives will be saved. The cancer plan will end the postcode lottery on cancer, introduce a new three-year neighbourhood early diagnosis fund, and cover the cost of travelling for cancer treatment. I know that Ministers are happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss that further.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q14. I thank the Deputy Prime Minister and others for their comments about Jo Cox; our thoughts are with her family today, as they are every day. May I also thank the Harlow Town Park volunteers, who I joined this morning in repairing the iconic zig-zag bridge in Harlow? Harlow will be the site of one of the Government’s new youth hubs—another example of this Labour Government investing in our town. I believe passionately that Harlow’s young people have so much potential. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree? Does he also agree that this funding will unlock that potential?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is a former schoolteacher, and I know how much he cares about this matter. I am delighted that we have announced the locations of 180 new youth hubs, which include Harlow; it means that more young people across the country will benefit from skills and training opportunities. This week, we have shown that this Labour Government are working to transform the lives of our young people. I thank my hon. Friend for all his campaigning on behalf of his constituency—and I know that a lot of the young people support Spurs.

Youth Justice

Chris Vince Excerpts

Monday 18th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that that will not be the case. The 412 young people in custody at the moment are there for public protection; they have to be there. Many of those young people are there because of very violent crimes, and some of them are serving very long sentences. Public protection must always come first, but this White Paper recognises the modern world—the world that we live in. It also recognises the vulnerability of the particular cohort we are talking about, which has changed vastly from 20 years ago. There is more that we can do with agencies to support these young people, particularly in communities, so that they are not criminalised, mixing and going on to the adult prison, and to reduce the overall numbers.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am the Member for Harlow, if people were wondering.

May I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his really important statement and the non-partisan way in which he gave it? I welcome the fact that he is sitting next to the Minister responsible for children, families and wellbeing, my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister). I have listened to Members across the Chamber, and it strikes me that to really make a difference to young people in my constituency and across the UK, we have to ensure that Government Departments do not work in silos. What work is the Secretary of State doing with the DFE, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that we do not let any young people in my constituency and beyond be left behind?

[Mr Lammy]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for the work he does in Harlow. He knows that I know Harlow very well, because it happens to be the second home of Spurs supporters in the country. He will be pleased that just two weeks ago, I was sat discussing these issues with the Secretary of State for Education and my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington on the interministerial board that we have, which looks particularly at children in care and their outcomes, what more we can do, what more we can join up and how we can continue to make a difference for them. Over the five years that we have in this term in government, and it is five years—there has been some speculation in recent days that it might be less—I am determined that we are going to make a difference for looked-after children.

Draft First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Fees (Amendment) Order 2026

Chris Vince Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 General Committees

[The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Fees (Amendment) Order 2026.

This instrument, which was laid before the House on 19 March, marks the first stage of a wider programme of reform to introduce a fairer, more consistent and more sustainable fees framework in the property chamber, supporting the significant reforms to the private rented sector implemented by the Renters’ Rights Act 2025. Through that Act, the Government have delivered landmark change: we will abolish section 21 no-fault evictions, strengthen the rights of tenants to challenge unreasonable rent increases, and enhance local authority enforcement powers. Taken together, those measures represent the biggest expansion of renters’ rights in a generation.

However, rights only matter, and are only meaningful, if people can enforce them. That depends on a tribunal system that is sufficiently resourced and is accessible for all. Currently, around 250 types of application can be brought to the property chamber, but only about half of them incur a fee. That is because they originate from various legislative provisions, some of which are not referenced in the current fees order. That has created an inconsistent system that neither reflects the cost of administering proceedings nor supports a fair and proportionate contribution from its users.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister is right that the fees are not proportionate, but they also sometimes do not meet the cost of the tribunal. Does she agree that that is one of the reasons why this legislation is so important?

[Sarah Sackman]

I was just coming to that. The cost of delivering the service that the property tribunal provides far exceeds the fees we are talking about today, and that cost is borne by the taxpayer. We think that it is right and fair that, provided that fees are set at a level that does not impede access to justice, we recover some of the cost of providing this essential service from the users of the court.

As I say, the current system has created a patchwork, inconsistent system that neither reflects the cost of administering proceedings nor supports a fair and proportionate contribution from all its users. The new framework will consist of a £47 application fee for applications to appeal a rent increase and to challenge terms of a successor tenancy, with no hearing fees applicable; fees of £114 for applications and £227 for hearings in cases where access to justice is paramount; and a standard fee of £200 to bring an application to the tribunal and £300 for hearings. Alongside this framework, fee exemptions apply for urgent issues such as seeking a remedial order for an unsafe residential building, as well as for potential low-value claims, including cases where tenants are recovering unlawful fees charged by their landlords.

The estimated cost to the taxpayer of an average case brought to the property chamber is more than £900. Even after this framework is fully implemented, the property chamber will continue to be heavily subsidised by the taxpayer. A standard application fee of up to £200 therefore represents an important but modest contribution, and illustrates our commitment to access to justice, which has been the guiding principle in developing the framework. The property chamber deals with a wide range of cases involving users with varying financial circumstances, so it is simply not possible for a single fee to accurately reflect every type of application. Instead, the work that we undertook reviewed every type of application individually to identify the types of users and barriers they may face when seeking to bring a case to the tribunal. That led us to introduce a tiered framework that best reflects the varied work of the property tribunal. The new framework will create consistency in the charging of fees for applications that can be brought to the property chamber, increase levels of cost recovery and reduce the burden on the taxpayer, all while maintaining our commitment to ensuring that access for justice is protected for all.

This instrument will introduce fees for applications in the residential property division of the property chamber that arise from, or are amended by, the Renters’ Rights Act. It is made under the powers provided by section 42(1)(a), section 42(2) and section 49(3) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.

First, the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 will extend the right to apply to the property chamber to challenge a proposed rent increase to all private rented sector tenants. Tenants will also be able to apply to the property chamber within the first six months of a tenancy to request a termination if they believe that the starting rent is above the open market rent. The Renters’ Rights Act also includes the right of tenants to challenge the validity of a notice proposing a rent increase in the tribunal. Under the instrument, those applications will attract a £47 application fee and no hearing fees will apply.

Secondly, the Renters’ Rights Act introduces a new route to the tribunal to challenge the terms of a tenancy that arises on succession from a tenancy that was previously made under the Rent Act 1977. Under the instrument, those applications will also attract a fee of £47. If the application proceeds to a hearing, no hearing fee will apply.

Thirdly, the instrument applies our proposed standard £200 application fee and £300 hearing fee to appeals against the new financial penalties that local authorities can impose on landlords under the Renters’ Rights Act. It is reasonable and proportionate for landlords who choose to appeal to contribute to the cost of that process.

Finally, the instrument brings new rent repayment order routes, created by the Renters’ Rights Act, into the existing fees regime. Applications will incur a £114 application fee and a £227 hearing fee, matching the fees that already apply to comparable applications.

Turning to the impacts of the instrument, it is important to be clear about what it will mean in practice. As many of the measures in the instrument relate to the introduction of new or amended rights implemented by the Renters’ Rights Act, some users will be required to pay fees where none have previously been payable. That reflects the move, as I have said, towards a more consistent fees framework across the property chamber. Fees have been set at varying levels below cost to balance the principles of cost recovery with the principle of access to justice. It is important to note that, in the case of rent appeals, the balance between cost recovery and access to justice is more acute.

I reassure Members that the introduction of a fee for those cases has been carefully considered and calibrated. In those cases, the consequence of being unable to bring an appeal makes an applicant potentially more vulnerable to housing instability and economic hardship, especially as tenants are often in a vulnerable financial position, given cost of living pressures. Given those considerations, a considerably lower fee of £47 has been applied. The fee is one of the lowest payable across the courts and tribunals system, and ensures that tenants will not be deterred from exercising their right to appeal a rent increase by the fee.

In addition, there are other mitigations for rent appeals that ensure that fees do not deter or disadvantage tenants. The help with fees remission scheme will remain available to eligible applicants on lower incomes or in receipt of qualifying benefits who cannot afford to pay a fee. In the last year, we remitted £91 million pounds’ worth of fee income. Furthermore, under the Renters’ Rights Act, any rent increase will ordinarily take effect from the start of the first rent period following the date of the tribunal’s decision, rather than being backdated. In cases of undue hardship, the tribunal will be able to delay the date on which the rent increase takes effect by up to two months after the date of determination. That helps to ensure that tenants feel safe to challenge excessive proposed increases without fear of incurring additional financial pressures. Finally, where tenants are successful in appealing their rent increase, they may be able to recover the tribunal fee from their landlord in the end.

Without these measures, we would not be able to keep the tribunal service running, and the taxpayer would be required to shoulder a far greater proportion of the cost of the courts and tribunals systems. Thus, this instrument provides the necessary framework for a sustainable courts and tribunals system that is there for all those who need it while ensuring that access to justice is protected. I believe that the measures are fair and necessary, and I hope that the Committee will support them.

Victims and Courts Bill

Chris Vince Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 20th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I appreciate that clarification. The hon. Gentleman is correct, but Lords amendment 5C does much more than that, through listening to victims campaigners such as Tracey Hanson and Katie Brett directly. The measure is a direct tribute to them, because for them the status quo was neither fair nor acceptable.

I would also like to extend my sincere thanks and gratitude to Katie Brett. Katie, your commitment and courage in campaigning in memory of your sister Sasha has been truly remarkable. I do not need to remind the House that Sasha was brutally murdered at the age of just 16, and since that devastating loss, Katie has worked tirelessly to ensure that the families of victims have the right to be informed about the ULS scheme and that, where they are not told, they are given a fair opportunity to make a request to the Attorney General beyond the 28 day limit. I have felt privileged to get to know you all over the course of this Bill.

Before I turn to the motions that we will debate today, I would also like to thank those who have contributed to recent debates on amendments related to homicides abroad and court transcripts. I thank Members across this House and in the other place for the thoughtful way in which they have engaged with those issues. I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds), who has campaigned to ensure that support is available for families bereaved by homicide abroad as they navigate such tragic events. In the other place, the Government committed to working jointly with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, and the Home Office, to undertake a review of how support is provided to those families and to assess how current arrangements are operating.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I apologise to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), because I have just beat him to an intervention. Can I put on the record my thanks to the Minister for her work on this Bill? Whether we agree on different parts of the Bill, nobody in this Chamber or the other place could fail to recognise her personal commitment to ensuring that victims are at its heart. Could I ask her to mention the victims code and what she has done to make it easier to navigate for victims of crime?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. This Bill goes beyond party politics; this is a Bill, as I have said, for victims. It has been a sincere pleasure to work across political divides to get this right for victims, who are rightly at the heart of the Bill. I have always stated that I will work with anyone from any party if they have any measure that could make the criminal justice system a better place for victims, so that we start to put victims at its heart. The Bill does exactly that: it takes a step towards putting victims back at the heart of the criminal justice system, where they fundamentally belong.

Victims and Courts Bill

Chris Vince Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 25th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Perhaps I was not very clear. This is not about consulting with victims on what is required—we know what victims want, and I have spoken to many of them regarding court transcripts—but looking at what is possible right now. We are prioritising delivering sentencing remarks for free for all victims, and working with the judiciary to ensure that we get this right and accurate. That is the priority for the Government. As I have said, we are willing to go further on court transcripts; this is not the end. For example, we are looking at what would be the best next step for victims. Is acquittal the best thing to focus on right now? We need to get that right before we go further, and I will happily come back to this House with the Courts Minister on the next steps.

Lords amendment 1 would create a new entitlement for all victims of crime to receive transcripts of routes to verdict and of bail conditions and decisions relevant to their case, free of charge and within 14 days of a request—let us not forget that that is what is in the amendment. I will explain in more detail why that proposal would not provide significant benefits over the systems already in place. First, under the victims code, victims already have the right to be informed of bail outcomes and release conditions within five working days—a shorter timeframe than that proposed in the Lords amendment. We recognise the importance of this right and the benefits for victims in being able to access information in a timely or consistent way. We are exploring how responsibilities under the victims code are being met by the relevant service providers and how to better support them in the delivery of the code.

We are seeking views through the ongoing victims code consultation, which ends at the end of April, on whether the processes for providing bail information are working as intended. To strengthen them further, the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 will, once commenced, introduce a compliance framework requiring all criminal justice bodies to keep their delivery of the code under review. Taken together, these operational and legislative measures address the core concern around timely and sufficient provision of bail information far more effectively than introducing a statutory duty to provide transcripts of bail hearings.

Secondly, providing victims with routes to verdict would be unlikely to add significant value, which is why we need to discuss with victims what would be of most value to them. A route to verdict is typically a very short document—sometimes it is not even a document at all. Its purpose is not to explain the outcome of a case, but to guide members of the jury through a series of legal questions that they must consider privately when applying the law to the facts. Crucially, juries do not provide their answers to those questions or even give reasons for their verdict. Victims would therefore see only the questions that the jury was asked, not how they were answered, and they would gain no additional insight into the decision.

Lords amendment 3 would require the Crown court to publish sentencing remarks transcripts online and in public within 14 days of a request being made and to inform relevant victims of their right to request anonymity before publication. While the Government are fully committed to strengthening transparency—I make that commitment—the Lords amendment would create significant operational and financial pressures for victims at a very difficult time. Public release demands a higher standard of anonymisation to remove both direct and indirect identifiers of victims and witnesses. That is detailed, skilled work. Current AI-based tools cannot reliably carry out anonymisation for the complex and sensitive material heard in the criminal courts, and trained staff are still required to manually review each and every transcript. That means that even modest increases in publication would create disproportionate pressures on operational capacity.

Furthermore, requiring the court to make victims aware of their right to request anonymity, make appropriate redactions and publish the transcript online—all within 14 days of a sentencing remarks transcript request being made—would not be operationally viable at this time. As I have said, our immediate priority must be delivering the sentencing remarks expansion for victims properly and at pace. Adding substantial new duties at this stage would divert the very resources needed to deliver these important commitments for victims, which victims have asked us directly to provide.

Lords amendment 2 proposes the creation of an appendix to the victims code, setting out how the code applies to close relatives of British national victims of murder, manslaughter and infanticide outside the UK, where the victim was resident in England and Wales. The Government cannot support this Lords amendment, as it risks placing obligations on agencies to provide services to bereaved families that are impossible to deliver in practice and that in some places would go beyond what is in the victims code. It also risks confusing the existing legislative framework and therefore the workability of the code, and it could raise the expectations of victims.

The victims code already applies to some families bereaved by homicide abroad, namely where the offence is murder or manslaughter and the perpetrator is a British national or British resident. That is because, in those circumstances, the case can be prosecuted in England and Wales. Where offences cannot be prosecuted in the UK—for example, where the crime is committed overseas by a foreign national—most entitlements under the victims code do not apply. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds), who is in his place, for all his work with the brilliant organisation Murdered Abroad and for representing the views of all the families here.

While I appreciate that the code does not capture the whole of the cohort covered by the Lords amendment, I give the hon. Member for Maidenhead and the House my absolute assurance that the Government recognise the particular challenges faced by all families bereaved by homicide abroad, including those navigating very complicated overseas criminal justice processes, often in different languages. We are committed to working with agencies to improve the support available to them in England and Wales.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I join the Minister in thanking the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) for his work on this issue. I also take this opportunity to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) for her work on the part of this Bill that ensures there are no parental rights for child sex offenders or those who conceived a child by committing rape, which is absolutely abhorrent. I thank the Minister for taking those things forward and for her work in ensuring that victims are at the centre of this Bill.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

My hon. Friend is right. This is called the Victims and Courts Bill because it is a Bill for victims, built by victims and, sadly, by their experiences of how the criminal justice system has not supported them and has failed them. It is important for us to build on the Bill and ensure that we get it right and that it is workable, effective and delivers for victims in their everyday lives, as well as for future victims who will sadly be created by crime committed here or overseas.

Let me return to the victims of homicide abroad. In January this year, the Government published guidance that brings together clear and accessible information for families about the services that can support them. We have clarified the roles and responsibilities in further documentation online, which sets out exactly how the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the Ministry of Justice and the chief coroner and the coroner service will work together when a British national is a victim of murder or manslaughter abroad. While every case is considered on its individual circumstances, this document seeks to ensure a consistent level of service for bereaved families.

Throughout the debates on this topic, we have listened carefully to the concerns raised and we are committed to addressing them. To improve the consistency of support offered by consular services, the FCDO has committed itself to reviewing and refreshing its training provision for all consular staff. We need to improve access to translated documents, and the Ministry of Justice will review how translation is provided in the course of delivering the new homicide service contract in 2027. To ensure there is an independent view of the approach taken by agencies that support this cohort, the FCDO’s senior official for global consular services will meet either the Victims’ Commissioner or a representative when particular issues arise that merit further discussion. I thank the Victims’ Commissioner, and her predecessor, for continuing to engage with the FCDO and other agencies to advocate for families.

While we remain committed to strengthening support for families bereaved by homicide abroad, Lords amendment 2 confuses the purpose of the code in terms of its intended application to crimes capable of prosecution in England and Wales. It also risks creating obligations on agencies that are impossible to deliver, given that many of these cases will be handled overseas and therefore be entirely outside their control. Instead, we are determined to address directly the concerns faced by bereaved families.

Lords amendments 4 and 7 would remove clause 12 from the Bill, which means that the Lord Chancellor would not have the power to set the rates of private prosecution costs recoverable from central funds. The Government therefore cannot support those amendments. Retaining the current arrangements for private prosecutions would preserve a system that is inconsistent and places an unnecessary burden on the courts. Currently, when private prosecutors apply for their costs to be paid from central funds, there is no prescribed rate. The court, or the Legal Aid Agency acting on its behalf, must work out in each individual case what level of reimbursement is “reasonably sufficient”. That lack of clarity leads to unnecessary disputes, appeals and delays in an already delayed court process. By introducing transparent, consistent rates, we will give prosecutors clarity and certainty about what they will be paid, thereby reducing the need for cost appeals. Valuable court time is taken up by the determination of costs because of the lack of prescribed rates, which imposes an unnecessary burden on the courts.

It is important to stress again that the majority of private prosecutions never result in a claim from central funds, and will be entirely unaffected by this measure. Most private prosecutors act responsibly, apply the code tests properly and pursue cases in the public interest. However, we cannot ignore the evidence that, in a small number of cases, the near certainty of recovering large costs from central funds may cause the pursuit of private prosecutions that are disproportionate or an unsuitable remedy to the presenting legal issues. We have seen examples in which the costs claimed bear little resemblance to the scale or seriousness of the case, such as a £90,000 claim in a fraud prosecution when the loss was only £5,000. That is not what the system was intended for.

Let me make it clear that clause 12 does not set any rates, and does not alter the long-established right to bring a private prosecution. That right remains protected under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, and will not be affected. Before any rates are set, there will be extensive engagement with stakeholders and a full public consultation. The Government remain open-minded about where the rates should ultimately be set, but the rates will reflect the complexity and seriousness of cases and will be shaped by the evidence that we gather.

A number of respected charities bring private prosecutions to protect the public and pursue wrongdoing, but it is important to note that charities represent only about 10% to 15% of private prosecutions that result in claims on central funds, and that they will continue to be able to bring private prosecutions. Nothing in the clause alters the fundamental right to bring a private prosecution: that right is long-standing and preserved in statute, and the Government have no intention of changing it.

Clause 12 is a measured and necessary first step towards reform. It will bring clarity to an unclear system, improve efficiency, reduce unnecessary burdens on the courts, and help to ensure that taxpayers’ money is used responsibly. It will do all that while safeguarding access to justice and maintaining, fully and unequivocally, the fundamental right to bring a private prosecution.